PRESIDENT of the Board of Trade Ian Lang proposes curbs on industrial action in monopoly services, claiming that he does so in the interests of the consumer.
If this were true, then, surely, the consumer should also be protected from the actions of businesses that hold a monopoly.
Will consumers be entitled to compensation for inconvenience when the gas showroom or the only bank in their community closes?
Will consumers be able to demand the cost of taxi fares from the local bus company when it withdraws the only Sunday service? Of course not!
Ian Lang is not interested in consumers - you and me, the people of this country. He is simply keeping up the relentless attack on the rights of working people and our unions.
The principle of consumers being entitled to redress for inconvenience raises some interesting prospects.
Government policies have deprived us of jobs, health, education, welfare and civil rights. We must be due very substantial compensation for the inconvenience caused by the Government's monopoly.
BOB HAYES, Press Officer, Blackburn and District Trades Council.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article